> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> prop. Sometimes old tech is and advantage. One of the Australian
This is, umm, how should I say, an "urban legend". If you've ever spent any
time around any harbor then you know no skipper would ever undertake such an
iresponsible hazordous activity in shallow waters in anything but the most
dire of consequences. Most of the harbor where the sub base lies is in less
than 30 feet of water except for a few channels. He would have been cashiered
by the Australian Navy at the least for trying such a thing. The run in to
Puguet sound is very heavily trafficed by all manner of ships and subs don't
even submerge until they're a half a day out or longer. Even at Groton, Subs
don't submerge until they're almost a day out and off the continental shelf.
Regardless, it is true that diesel boats are ingherently quieter than nukes.
My original comment was a JOKE.
> At 18:29 21/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
That
> crew members are allowed to even go topside? I too have a lot of
Even on diesels the crew never sees sun until the cruise is over.
> I aboslutely agree. But I think you undersetimate the endurance ability
You
> mean some navies still grub around in those things? <grin>
Diesels are quiter for one thing because they don't need all those pumps to
stop the nuke core melting. The new "Collins" class Australian subs are
supposed to be the quitest subs about except for some bad design on the prop.
Sometimes old tech is and advantage. One of the Australian "Oberon" class subs
entered the boomer base in Seattle without anyone, particularly the Yanks
knowing about it until it surfaced. The Russians have continued to use values
in much of their military electronic gear because it is less vulernable to EMP
(electro magnetic pluse) effects which is basically what you get during a
solar flare or exploding a suitable nuke in orbit.
> At 13:37 22/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
Firstly I did think your comment was meant as a joke and I must apologise if
my reply was terse or arguementative as it was not ment to be. I'll claim that
I was tired. You could be right about it being an urban myth which is always
the problem with stories like these. However I have come across this one
several times in different places over a number of years so there must be
something to it. I will admit that stories grow with the telling. I don't know
about cashiering. Somone who can penetrate a harbour like that could be
invaluable in war. He would deffinately get a big rap over the nuckles and
some sure time. Our navy could not afford to lose someone like that.
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> You could be right about it being an urban myth which is
I certainly don't disagree that a dieselboat, Ausssie driven or not, could
potentially pull off such a feat. It's jsut not somethingthat is done in
peacetime. Harbors channels are very narrow and relatively shallow basisns and
it woudl be irresponsible for acaptain to attempt suck a feat or hold an
exrcize like that especially with the heavy civilain traffic that uses teh
Puget sound channel. (BTW somone has already mentioned that they heard this
took place at sea and the sub penetrated a CV Group. That's sound more like
it.
> [quoted text omitted]
I don't know about cashiering. Somone who can penetrate a harbour like that
could be invaluable in war. He would deffinately get a big rap over
the nuckles and some sure time. Our navy could not afford to lose someone like
that.
<<<
Hopefully the RAN is a bit less beuracratic (sp?) than the US NAVY with such
matters of irresponsibiliy. I mean a B52 pilot that could fly underneath the
Veranzano Bridge in New York City and then BUZZ Kennedy International without
getting on radar would be very skilled and competent, but that still wouldn't
save him from being cashiered for the stunt.
> At 11:28 23/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
Yep heard a couple of stories about subs getting into CV groups, sometimes
alone and sometimes when working with surface units.
> I don't know about cashiering. Somone who can penetrate a harbour like
I know what you mean but it seems to me to be more a case of how many
civilians knew and were put at risk. Anyway..... The only people running ships
that run aground or into wharfs in Sydney harbour have been ferry captains and
the RANs own. That deffinately gets you a shore posting for life. Also a
couple of years ago 2 submariners were lost at sea when their sub dived
without them (they were working as ordered in the base of the conning tower).
As I understand things no one has been cashiered altough the officers involved
were all repremanded and the captain lost his command. Also early in the year
there was a major fire on one of our replenishment ships killing 4 crew. The
inqury has finished but I have not kept up t date with whats happening over
that. Overall I'm pretty cynical about the Services here sacking anyone.
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> Diesels are quiter for one thing because they don't need all
...but many modern SSNs are able to go at reasonable speeds using just natural
circulation.
> The new "Collins" class Australian subs are
No comment I'm afraid.
> Sometimes old tech is and advantage. One of the Australian "Oberon"
It was a Canuck sub in the incident I've been told of. Also an O-boat
btw. I might add that Oz O-boats supposedly did similar things though.
Just usually on the other side of the Pacific, where the penalty for being
caught wouldn't be a sonar lashing, but a 405mm with a live